Monday, September 19, 2016

Referendum on the Occupation.

Occupation?

Orni Petruschka

The initiative for holding a referendum in Israel,
"Decision at 50," calls for a decision on the future of the
territories occupied by Israel for nearly 50 years. This plan derives from the
recognition that the current Israeli government has no interest in ending the occupation.
In fact, each of the previous Israeli governments over the last 50 years has
refrained from making a decision to either annex the territories or to withdraw
from them. So the initiators of the call for the referendum are turning to the
authority above the government -- the Israeli public. The people are called on
to direct the government to make this decision: Either start leaving the territories,
or delineate a series of moves that will bring an end to Israeli control over
the West Bank.

Those behind the initiative, all supporting a two-state
solution, include public figures, former ministers and members of the Knesset, as
well as the heads of the public movements Peace Now and Blue White Future, of
which I am a co-founder along with Ami Ayalon and Gilead Sher. We have
advocated for a two-state solution for many years.

It's no surprise to us that the referendum plan is being
rejected by the right wing in Israel and in the Diaspora. But, somewhat surprisingly,
there is also strong opposition coming from the progressive camp -- see, for
example, Mira Sucharov's recent op-ed in these pages.

The arguments from the progressive camp against the
referendum can be divided into two categories. The first is moral, asserting
that Israel has no right to determine the future of the occupied territories without
taking into account the opinions of the inhabitants of these territories -- the
millions of Palestinians who have legitimate national aspirations. The second
category is a practical one, and includes arguments based on the assessment
that the referendum results will be against a two-state solution, and hence
will move us farther away from the possibility of reaching such a solution.

Let's conjure a fantasy to analyze the moral claim: The
elected Israeli government decides that the occupation is counterproductive for
Israel. It is morally destructive, actually hurts both the security and economy
of the country and delays a solution of Israel's enormous social problems.
Therefore, this government implements a gradual withdrawal from the
territories, while trying to forge peace with its neighbors and heal the wounds
within Israeli society. Obviously, the entire progressive Zionist camp will
support such a move and not claim that Israel has no right to execute it
without consulting the Palestinians because they have not participated in electing
Israel's government.

Consequently, the moral argument is valid only if the result
of the referendum will be to annex the territories. Then the moral and the practical
become one. It is only because the progressive objectors are apprehensive about
the referendum's results that they raise the moral argument at all.

But from the practical point of view there is a reason to be
optimistic. Recent polls indicate a clear majority for the supporters of the
two-state solution. Strong opposition from the right to a referendum
demonstrates that this hope is well grounded.

There are additional weighty moral and practical arguments
for holding a referendum, even if the optimistic forecast proves wrong and the results
affirm continuing Israeli control over the territories. If indeed the Israeli
people choose to rule the territories indefinitely, the ambiguous policy of the
Israeli government, which speaks about supporting a two-state solution while
simultaneously undermining it, will be unmasked as deceptive. A negative result
of the referendum will force Israel to confront the international community,
with all the relevant consequences detrimental to Israel.

Plus, a negative result will require the progressive camp in
Israel to change its agenda. This camp will have to admit failure in its
attempt to preserve the Zionist vision of creating a Jewish democracy. Decent and
moral human beings in the modern world work toward full and equal human and
civil rights for all the residents within the borders of the state. That
applies to Israel and its Palestinian residents, too.

With each passing day another house is built in the
territories, another road is paved, and another child is born into an immoral reality.
Those who object to making a decision about the future of the territories are
lending a hand to strengthening the occupation.

Orni Petruschka, a high-tech entrepreneur in Israel, is
co-chairman of the Israeli non-partisan organization, Blue White Future, which advocates
for a two-state solution.